It's password protected. If any harm comes to Julian Assange, it will be leaked too.

Now I'm kinda wondering about if they have anything evolving around China and Russia.

Harleyquiiinn

11-29-2010, 12:50 PM

Ah I was surprised there was nothing about that.

From what I read, Wikileaks won't publish everything but only the memos chosen by 5 newspapers: The Guardian (UK), the New York Times (US), Der Spiegel (Germany), El Pais (Spain) and Le Monde (France). These 5 have been working together to filter any information which could put people in danger or could create serious conflict. They worked with Julien Lassange.

I only read Le Monde and they will publish several articles and analysis about these memos. The ones today were very interesting, especially about Iran.

I'm not sure what to think about that. Diplomacy has a lot to do with confidentiality. It's really great to have access to all that, see how it works. I'm just not sure it will create any good...

yarock

11-29-2010, 01:59 PM

The leaked documents are just the visible part of the iceberg (I don't know you guys, but we do have such expression). Only %0.001 part of the documents have been revealed.

It's like Zeitgeist, but more solid. Could be a start of an era. I'm not so shiny about it, expect both good and bad consequences. And ugly too.

They worked with Julien Lassange.

Is that French version of his name?:) Well, apparently he's not messing around. He located the site servers in a sheltered underground bunker somewhere in Stockholm.

Static_Martyr

11-29-2010, 04:02 PM

So it seems the Obama administration has deemed the leaks an "attack against the US" and is threatening criminal prosecution against the parties involved in retaliation. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101129/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_wikileaks_security)

The Talking Pie

11-29-2010, 05:05 PM

The best thing that could come of this would be certain countries being kicked out of the UN. Although realistically it wouldn't be the ones that really deserved it.

The problem is that most people simply don't care. Everyone knows that US foreign policy is a bit iffy. But no one cares, really. You need scandal involving celebrities to incite the idiot masses to demand (or force) change of their leaders.

jacknife737

11-29-2010, 07:45 PM

Their fairly interesting to read through, but like the Iraq and Afghan war diaries, there is nothing terribly shocking here: ie I mean, we all knew that the House of Saud didn't care for the Iranians.

As for what "good" these do: i'm fully supportive of exposing warcrimes, and things of that nature, but this recent release doesn't really do that, all it does is potentially further destabilize relations between certain states or embarrass others and destroy diplomatic confidentiality which is a cornerstone of interstate relations.

And ironically enough, the blow back from these leaks are going to have the opposite effect of what wikileaks intended (more transparency). The US, and other states are currently engaging in a major overall of how information is shared and who has access.

Still, I am interested about their planned "leak" of Russian documents.

AllIn All It's Not So Bad

11-29-2010, 09:39 PM

"The young Army Pfc. suspected of stealing the diplomatic memos, many of them classified, and feeding them to WikiLeaks may have defeated Pentagon security systems using little more than a Lady Gaga CD and a portable computer memory stick."

Pathetic is all I have to say

Jesus

11-30-2010, 12:11 AM

Nice to see the memo's (finally) confirming that there are nuclear weapons around 40 km from where I live.

wheelchairman

11-30-2010, 07:39 AM

I liked what Stephen Walt (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/29/dont_write_if_you_can_talk_the_latest_from_wikilea ks) had to say about it, and how they're being used.

Jesus being the NERD he is has probably already read that.

Harleyquiiinn

11-30-2010, 07:44 AM

Is that French version of his name?:) Well, apparently he's not messing around. He located the site servers in a sheltered underground bunker somewhere in Stockholm.

Yeah sorry, I was drunk and all... :D

Harleyquiiinn

12-01-2010, 01:02 AM

In 2002, Sarko went to the american embassy, when he was a minister, and strongly criticized Chirac and Villepin (President and prime minister) for their decision not to go in Iraq.

Thank God of democracy that he wasn't President at the time.

yarock

12-01-2010, 04:29 AM

Probably Sarkozy acted that way because of his ambitions- he was an antagonist back then I suppose. As a president and Carla's lover, I don't think that he still regrets that France didn't participate in the war.

One of the most interesting things that I read states that Usa will use this as an excuse to take control over the cyber world. Just like finding mass destruction weapons was their "goal" when invading Iraq.

On the other hand Assange has very interesting awards. He has one from Amnesty Int., a Sam Adams award (this one's about intelligence) and he is likely to be Time Person of the Year.

wheelchairman

12-01-2010, 04:54 AM

One of the most interesting things that I read states that Usa will use this as an excuse to take control over the cyber world. Just like finding mass destruction weapons was their "goal" when invading Iraq.

That'd be interesting if it were probable. What kind of paranoid nut-job thought that? Did he *read* the cables?

The US will probably pay it a little attention and hope it disappears in the mean-time. Republicans will probably use it for a variety of opportunistic reasons, all from cherry-picking cables that support their foreign policy stances, to proof of incompetence by Obama in the field of national security.

yarock

12-01-2010, 05:10 AM

Maybe she *seek* the back side of the apparent. I would give a link readily but its in foreign language. Her main argument is US government was already know the content of the docs that has been leaked.

wheelchairman

12-01-2010, 05:18 AM

My question was more rhetorical.

The idea that the US would seize upon this as an excuse to 'control' the internet is laughable. The fact that this idea comes from a non-American news pundit simply reveals my own unfortunate prejudices towards American news media.

If the article isn't in French or Danish I probably won't be able to read it. If it's in French I'll probably be able to figure out the headline before I give up. Unless it has verbs in the future tense. :/ Then I'd be fucked.

yarock

12-01-2010, 05:39 AM

It's in Turkish and Google Translate isn't our friend. But I assure you the writer isn't some kind of Pied Piper. And I'm not sure she's the only one who thinks that way.

In July 2010; Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower said Assange "is serving our [American] democracy and serving our rule of law precisely by challenging the secrecy regulations, which are not laws in most cases, in this country."

wheelchairman

12-01-2010, 05:45 AM

Just because more than one person thinks that way, doesn't mean its overly paranoid. Nor does transparency have anything to do with US intentions on internet-conquest.

It'd be far better for American democracy if something was leaked that people couldn't have guessed/figured out based on reading the news.

So far the only embarrassing thing revealed about Denmark is that an American diplomat has called a member of the Danish parliament ignorant on the topics of economics, foreign policy and history.

The joke here is that that could be all of them. :D

yarock

12-01-2010, 06:21 AM

Just because more than one person thinks that way, doesn't mean its overly paranoid.

It's a thought. Nobody said it's right or wrong. It's just another point of view.

wheelchairman

12-01-2010, 06:34 AM

Oh I was under the impression you were saying it was right. You'll have to excuse my misunderstanding you. :)

yarock

12-01-2010, 07:03 AM

No problemo. Seemingly Sweden played its part too, they put out an arrest warrant for Assange.

Little_Miss_1565

01-01-2011, 04:00 PM

No problemo. Seemingly Sweden played its part too, they put out an arrest warrant for Assange.

The arrest warrant was for something completely separate. In a way though it's like he can now flaunt any laws he pleases, considering that any time charges are brought against him, apologists will go out of their way to say it's a set-up (see also Keith Olbermann & Michael Moore - though they have since apologized, it's still kind of fucked up).

yarock

01-01-2011, 04:08 PM

Yeah yeah I know. Back then the way that I see that incident was completely different.

samseby

08-21-2012, 06:06 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xod1PqLvaE4

Little_Miss_1565

08-21-2012, 09:21 AM

Not feeling inclined to get up in arms over someone trying to avoid facing trial for forcing himself on two women. Man up or fuck off, Assange.

OC HAU

08-21-2012, 01:06 PM

Let's not forget that this world is corrupted. It would be a very dumb move to have a trial. Man up or fuck off, the USA. How are we going to trial the USA? A couple bombs or just put every American citizen into home custody? This is a stalemate right know.

jacknife737

08-21-2012, 06:58 PM

Not feeling inclined to get up in arms over someone trying to avoid facing trial for forcing himself on two women. Man up or fuck off, Assange.

The smugness that he, and a lot of his supporters show towards such a serious charge really sickens me.

I hope he's comfortable in that Ecuadorian embassy: he's not getting out of the uk unless he's in handcuffs.

Little_Miss_1565

08-21-2012, 10:29 PM

Let's not forget that this world is corrupted. It would be a very dumb move to have a trial. Man up or fuck off, the USA. How are we going to trial the USA? A couple bombs or just put every American citizen into home custody? This is a stalemate right know.

You know the trial would be in Sweden, right? Otherwise, what the fuck does this post even say? If the US can't get Sweden to shut down the fucking Pirate Bay, they sure as shit aren't telling them to get Assange extradited to Sweden to stand trial for sexual assault.

Eskimo

08-22-2012, 01:52 AM

This thing is such bullshit. If the Big Bad U.S. was really pulling all the strings here, going to any lengths to manipulate an end to the Assange problem, they could have pretty frickin' easily had some dude shoot him on that balcony and make it look like some nutjob or whatever.

Dude's a rapist trying to divert people. Fuck him.

samseby

08-22-2012, 06:36 AM

If this was “just” about a man and an alleged sex crime and a questioning … this wouldn’t have gone global & the British government wouldn’t have made these pretty dumb threats like enter the embassy by force etc. Assange should be questioned for sure but without the danger of being extradited and ending up in the US.

jacknife737

08-22-2012, 08:48 AM

If this was “just” about a man and an alleged sex crime and a questioning … this wouldn’t have gone global & the British government wouldn’t have made these pretty dumb threats like enter the embassy by force etc. Assange should be questioned for sure but without the danger of being extradited and ending up in the US.

And why should Assange recieve special treatment? Alleged sex offenders should not be able to dictate the terms of their own legal proceedings.

While I agree that the threats to enter the embassy were stupid and counter-productive - on the topic of extradition: the US has a treaty with both Sweden and the UK concerning this issue: if they do decide to request that he be extradited and can demonstrate that within reasonable doubt that Assange violated US law, then I see no valid reason why he should not be extradited to the US. The US is not some banna republic; it has an independent judiciary and a trasnparent legal system.

I'm not saying that Mr. Assange deserves to go to prison for anything (i'll wait for him to be found guility) but he, like any other individual does not and should not have a permanent "get out of jail free card" just because he leaks documents and promtes freedom of information.

OC HAU

08-22-2012, 08:54 AM

The smugness that he, and a lot of his supporters show towards such a serious charge really sickens me.

I hope he's comfortable in that Ecuadorian embassy: he's not getting out of the uk unless he's in handcuffs.
Yeah, keep talking only about about him, don't even try to mention the USA's international politics and Wikileaks.

I hope that Clinton finally buys Hillary a dildo, publicly.

You know the trial would be in Sweden, right?

Otherwise, what the fuck does this post even say?

If the US can't get Sweden to shut down the fucking Pirate Bay, they sure as shit aren't telling them to get Assange extradited to Sweden to stand trial for sexual assault.
You know the world is connected and the USA has a lot of friends there? It's politics, you give me this, I'll give you that.

What does my post say? What does the USA's international politics say or trying to shut Wikileaks down?

They can't do it, but they are trying hard, everyone wants it--a man from Pirate Bay sits in a prison. The USA could put some economic embargo on Sweden. I suspect opportunist politics from England and Sweden, they should fuck off too. You know the USA could say that they don't want to shut down Pirate Bay or Wikileaks or get Assange. The USA can sit calmly, but you can't ignore the fact that the USA is a superpower and everyone around them will act like their little whores.

This thing is such bullshit. If the Big Bad U.S. was really pulling all the strings here, going to any lengths to manipulate an end to the Assange problem, they could have pretty frickin' easily had some dude shoot him on that balcony and make it look like some nutjob or whatever.

Dude's a rapist trying to divert people. Fuck him.
You know I like some things about the USA and some just not. No need to talk about Big Bad USA.

Of course they could shoot him down like Osama bin Ladin smoked the twins down, but I don't think it's desired, he is on TV a lot and his death could put bad light on USA, I'm not joking, there is lots of anti-americanism in Europe and it's not a problem to activate it. On the other hand, 80% percent of people like Obama. It's not so simple.

Yeah, he is only a rapist and the whole world is fascinated with a rapist. 3 fucking countries are dancing around him.

If this was “just” about a man and an alleged sex crime and a questioning … this wouldn’t have gone global & the British government wouldn’t have made these pretty dumb threats like enter the embassy by force etc.

Assange should be questioned for sure but without the danger of being extradited and ending up in the US.
Yeah.

I'm not against a fair trial, but is it possible now? I don't trust my own country's courts...

samseby

08-22-2012, 09:42 AM

Like I said this is not just a "normal" law "case". I wasn't there, I don't know what happened to these women but the way I see it now is that it's pretty "convenient" for some that the alleged crime is out there and sometimes I just happen to not like "convenient" much ;) so I start questioning and wondering.

HAU, I think the language barrier is getting in the way here, but the US isn't putting any sanctions on a first-world country. If they were going to, they would have done it already for the damn Pirate Bay.

And I agree with Jacknife - not saying he's guilty, but he sure is acting like it.

OC HAU

08-22-2012, 03:56 PM

Some people act like Wikileaks is a bad thing. :D

Little_Miss_1565

08-22-2012, 04:04 PM

Whistleblowing doesn't give you a free pass to rape people.

OC HAU

08-22-2012, 05:16 PM

That's right, but again you put him in a bad light under the word whistle-blower, but that could be a language barrier again. Wikileaks was nominated for the nobel peace price.

I think a fair trial would be in front of the whole Europe. It sure is a special and strange case. Let's keep watching how it will end...it's some kind of a stalemate now...

Little_Miss_1565

08-22-2012, 05:58 PM

Whistle-blower doesn't have negative connotations in English.

I think it would be silly to have a trial in all of Europe over whether or not he raped those two women in Sweden.

WeAreOne9

08-22-2012, 06:23 PM

The word rape gets a lot of use on these forums

Llamas

08-22-2012, 06:29 PM

He seems super guilty, and is a total dickwad if so. He did something good for the people, for the world maybe... not discrediting him on that. However, he deserves the punishment for his own crimes.

T-6005

08-22-2012, 06:43 PM

Whistleblowing doesn't give you a free pass to rape people.

As I understood it, Julian Assange was asked to return for Sweden for questioning after he was accused of tampering with a condom during sex or refusing to wear one, and subsequently refused to pass an STD test. He returned for the questioning the first time the warrant was issued in August 2010, after which it was dropped. However, the supposed reason he didn't return the second time the warrant was issued was because there had been a secret grand jury prepared to indict him in the United States after the leaking of the Collateral Damage video and the assorted cables.

I am not denying that Julian Assange might be guilty - but that is the offense as I understand it. I don't know if that would translate as 'rape' under Commonwealth or American law. Just pointing out that the timing of a reapparance of a warrant Assange already cooperated with is fortuitous for someone.

A slightly more in-depth article. (http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2012/08/21/assange-dodges-elite-media-darts/)

This isn't an opinion - though I find the media storm around Assange almost as fascinating as the Manning trial - just wanted to see if I could provide some context and see what others thought. I am not - and I want to make it clear - blindly insisting that Assange is innocent or should not be subject to justice if found guilty.

OC HAU

08-22-2012, 06:52 PM

Whistle-blower doesn't have negative connotations in English.

I think it would be silly to have a trial in all of Europe over whether or not he raped those two women in Sweden.
OK, good to know. /// "Julian Paul Assange is an Australian editor, activist, political talk show host,[2] computer programmer, publisher and[3][4] journalist. He is best known as the editor-in-chief and founder of WikiLeaks, a media website which has published information from whistleblowers." So not really a whistle-blower, he is a bit higher, a major whistleblower. :D

"He has received numerous awards and nominations, including the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award, Readers' Choice for TIME magazine's 2010 Person of the Year, the 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation gold medal and the 2011 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism.[11]" Might be silly, but it's complicated, he is now like a huge political puppet. If the USA backs off, I might admit it. I don't watch it too tightly, I don't even remember why he is in England. "The British government intends to extradite Assange to Sweden under that arrest warrant if he leaves the embassy, which Assange says he fears may result in his subsequent extradition to the United States of America to face charges over the diplomatic cables case." What guaranties can Sweden or the USA give?

Little_Miss_1565

08-22-2012, 10:13 PM

The word rape gets a lot of use on these forums

You say that as though it's just getting thrown out apropos of nothing in this instance. For once we're talking about the actual act and not threats against me. Sorry you felt the need to be nasty about it.

As I understood it, Julian Assange was asked to return for Sweden for questioning after he was accused of tampering with a condom during sex or refusing to wear one, and subsequently refused to pass an STD test. He returned for the questioning the first time the warrant was issued in August 2010, after which it was dropped. However, the supposed reason he didn't return the second time the warrant was issued was because there had been a secret grand jury prepared to indict him in the United States after the leaking of the Collateral Damage video and the assorted cables.

...

This isn't an opinion - though I find the media storm around Assange almost as fascinating as the Manning trial - just wanted to see if I could provide some context and see what others thought. I am not - and I want to make it clear - blindly insisting that Assange is innocent or should not be subject to justice if found guilty.

T, I know you are a scholar and a gentleman and believe you. I'm confused though on what a secret grand jury indictment would have to do with an extradition to Sweden. He's no more likely to get extradited to the US from Sweden than from the UK. But, for the record, withdrawal of consent due to a refusal to wear a condom is, by definition, rape.

The Manning trial just makes me sad, or rather, Bradley Manning makes me super, super sad. To be that young and that despondent...I don't know that the repeal of DADT would have done anything for his state of mind but...ugh. All I can feel is super bummed for him.

T-6005

08-22-2012, 10:53 PM

T, I know you are a scholar and a gentleman and believe you. I'm confused though on what a secret grand jury indictment would have to do with an extradition to Sweden. He's no more likely to get extradited to the US from Sweden than from the UK. But, for the record, withdrawal of consent due to a refusal to wear a condom is, by definition, rape.

The Manning trial just makes me sad, or rather, Bradley Manning makes me super, super sad. To be that young and that despondent...I don't know that the repeal of DADT would have done anything for his state of mind but...ugh. All I can feel is super bummed for him.

The only reason the grand jury is interesting is because the warrant was reissued, and according to some of the sources I have read - obviously our knowledge can only be as good as our sources - he complied with the investigation in the first instance and the warrant was dismissed/dropped/broken/whatever people do with warrants.

Apparently he's currently less likely to be extradited to the US from Sweden thanks to this helpful statement from the Australian Foreign Minister on Sweden not extraditing if the subject might face the death penalty (http://gulfnews.com/news/world/australia/sweden-unlikely-to-extradite-assange-to-us-1.1064531). Which is super helpful until we consider the current US administration's passing acquaintance with the truth and their willingness to extrajudicially murder 16-year old American citizens. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Rahman_al-Awlaki) At which point, you know "we totally won't murder him" becomes a little bit more dubious.

I appreciate the gentleman and a scholar comment, Sarah (and I kind of blushed) but my point wasn't meant to be on the definition of rape. I feel that rape should be - and for me, is - the sexual violation of physical agency by one person on another. It's the removal of sexual choice. That's a personal definition. Despite some definitely unwanted sex in my own past, I don't think I know what other people think rape is. To do so would be to remove another part of people's agency about sexual knowledge. But whatever I believe in no way means that Assange should escape any crimes he has perpetrated. If he is guilty, he should be treated like any other individual according to the law.

The question becomes "How common is it for warrants to be reissued," which is a google search I just did which came up with no results. It's why I wanted to underline that I have no opinion on Assange or his crimes, and dearly hope that he will not escape Swedish justice through refugee status in Ecuador. Having said that, for the current revolution being waged on forms of communication and information distribution by people like Assange (and, to be fair though he's the face of it, mostly by the network supporting him), these hybrid interests become extremely important.

The Internet is the single most important information redistribution system we've ever seen, and along with other factors it has led to the largest retroactive classification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_(film)) of US government documents in history. The idea that there are ideas and pieces of information that the population is not ready for is a terrifying one because it reinforces dual notions. First - the population is neither mature nor responsible enough to deal with information in a rational manner. Second - information should not be made available to the public because of this irrationality.

It encourages a population distanced from the facts, even when those facts are nuanced and difficult. It's terrifying.

I've come far afield, from Assange's moral character into what actually interests me about Wikileaks, and I want to repeat that I don't think one necessarily affects the other. Assange might be a rapist and should go rot in jail even as the information revolution he has been a part of absolutely requires our attention. We should never confuse the two, or assume one position in regards to other people.

We can both despite people and admit their use. France certainly did it for Marat. The United States did it for slaves. Japan did it for Admiral Perry. Katie Holmes did it for Tom Cruise.

Sorry for the levity - But I think what I'm interested in fostering aren't opinions so much as a cloud-space of facts and reports upon which people can broadly pull to piece together accurate fragments of the world.

OC HAU

08-23-2012, 11:13 PM

Now I'm so silly I wonder if the rape was desired from both sides, Assange has a visibility from it for his safety or wikileaks and the women could write a book about it. Also, who knows if they have a connection to the USA. *paranoid*

Poor Manning, set him free!

Eskimo

08-24-2012, 03:31 AM

It's also an assload easier to extradite Assange to the U.S. from Britain, over Sweden.

This whole thing is victimization bullshit. And I'm not even particularly one-way-or-the-other in opinion over the document publishing. The Brits should go extract him by force, and deal with the consequences with Ecuador. I mean, what the fuck are they going to do? It's Ecuador.

samseby

08-24-2012, 05:54 AM

Yeah, let's take away all rights from embassies (and those seeking asylum etc.).
Why can't the Swedes just question him in the embassy or the US guarantee not to demand extradition?
On wikileaks - ever seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2NYEiJWtrk

Little_Miss_1565

08-24-2012, 09:42 AM

It's also an assload easier to extradite Assange to the U.S. from Britain, over Sweden.

This whole thing is victimization bullshit. And I'm not even particularly one-way-or-the-other in opinion over the document publishing.

Yeah, this is where I'm at on this too. If he was going to get extradited to the US he would have already.

Apparently he's currently less likely to be extradited to the US from Sweden thanks to this helpful statement from the Australian Foreign Minister on Sweden not extraditing if the subject might face the death penalty (http://gulfnews.com/news/world/australia/sweden-unlikely-to-extradite-assange-to-us-1.1064531). Which is super helpful until we consider the current US administration's passing acquaintance with the truth and their willingness to extrajudicially murder 16-year old American citizens. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Rahman_al-Awlaki) At which point, you know "we totally won't murder him" becomes a little bit more dubious.

I understand this. Regardless of who the president is, our government has become rather dubious.

I appreciate the gentleman and a scholar comment, Sarah (and I kind of blushed) but my point wasn't meant to be on the definition of rape. I feel that rape should be - and for me, is - the sexual violation of physical agency by one person on another. It's the removal of sexual choice. That's a personal definition. Despite some definitely unwanted sex in my own past, I don't think I know what other people think rape is. To do so would be to remove another part of people's agency about sexual knowledge. But whatever I believe in no way means that Assange should escape any crimes he has perpetrated. If he is guilty, he should be treated like any other individual according to the law.

Without getting too far afield, I am not familiar with the particulars of Swedish law, but in the US, sex after a withdrawal of consent is rape. You are correct that a lot of people don't have a clear idea of what rape is, and it's especially a problem on college campuses in the US where women get peer pressured or otherwise bullied into thinking what is actually rape was somehow okay or justified. But I am glad we agree that he should be beholden to the law.

The question becomes "How common is it for warrants to be reissued," which is a google search I just did which came up with no results.

While I can't speak to the rest of this paragraph or the lack of Google searches, I do some paralegal work and worked on one case here where two brothers were arrested for murder, with the appropriate arrest and search warrants, and released not long after. The police wanted to see what they would do if they were out on their own recognizance, plus there were issues with witnesses recanting after being threatened by gang members. Once the case became stronger several months later, warrants were again issued and they were arrested again. What sunk them is that one of the brothers got it into his head that jeopardy attached to an arrest and told everyone with ears that he did it. However, in the US, jeopardy attaches when a jury is impaneled against the defendant and the first witness is sworn in criminal proceedings. So warrants can be issued multiple times and it be completely legal.

It encourages a population distanced from the facts, even when those facts are nuanced and difficult. It's terrifying.

Ever see Idiocracy? Yeah.

I've come far afield, from Assange's moral character into what actually interests me about Wikileaks, and I want to repeat that I don't think one necessarily affects the other. Assange might be a rapist and should go rot in jail even as the information revolution he has been a part of absolutely requires our attention. We should never confuse the two, or assume one position in regards to other people.

This this this this this. People seem to be convinced that because he's done something notable means he can't possibly have done something morally reprehensible. This is incorrect thinking. And on a general note, T, thank you for the cogent, well thought out examination of the many sides of this issue.

Now I'm so silly I wonder if the rape was desired from both sides, Assange has a visibility from it for his safety or wikileaks and the women could write a book about it. Also, who knows if they have a connection to the USA. *paranoid*

Please, HAU, fuck off with this trolly bullshit.

Yeah, let's take away all rights from embassies (and those seeking asylum etc.).
Why can't the Swedes just question him in the embassy or the US guarantee not to demand extradition?
On wikileaks - ever seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2NYEiJWtrk

Moar like Ron LOL, amirite? Also, nice straw man there, since no one is actually arguing for the stripping of rights from embassies, though Ecuador is technically breaking Britain's diplomatic regulations.

samseby

08-26-2012, 01:37 AM

Was referring to Eskimo's post esp. [...] The Brits should go extract him by force [...]
And Ron Paul raises some intersting questions here, don't you think? ;)

Little_Miss_1565

08-26-2012, 11:37 AM

Interesting questions in the same way that the kid I sometimes babysit raises interesting questions about having to go to bed before the sun is completely down, sure.

OC HAU

08-26-2012, 07:41 PM

I guess he pwned Sweden's poor rape laws or maybe he is just naturally sneaky person. It was some kind of a sly, sneaky or intelligent rape and those women were not sure what was going on.

When Ron Paul is right, that's very suspicious. Does he want to get political points by being different than other politicians? What's Democrats' opinion about it?

I think it's clear what should happen now, but it's a political game. The USA and Ecuador should back off and Sweden should give him guaranties. Trial him for rape in Sweden. If it's not possible, trial him somewhere in Europe. Breaking into the embassy, that'd be interesting.

samseby

08-26-2012, 11:29 PM

Interesting questions in the same way that the kid I sometimes babysit raises interesting questions about having to go to bed before the sun is completely down, sure.

If that's the way you wanna see it ...

Little_Miss_1565

08-27-2012, 12:04 AM

Cutting this off at the pass, I don't buy into this "if you don't think Ron Paul is a flippin' genius, then you're a sheep" thing. Dude's ideas are frequently half-baked and don't take a lot of things into account. He sells an idealized version of the US that will never exist. His people tend to be people who expected Obama to be some sort of magical unicorn, who now spurn him because he turned out to be a politician (which he always was). His people tend to whinge just as much as Mr. Paul does.

WebDudette

08-27-2012, 02:11 AM

lolololo, ron paul. Dude is straight fucking cray.

jacknife737

08-27-2012, 06:03 PM

Ron Paul is just the mainstream version of that dude who tries to pass you their badly photocopied political manifesto as you try and get on the subway.